Exactly! There's no prerequisite to fulfill human rights. That's some slave like logic, as if you gotta earn rights.
However, I've yet to understand how voluntaryism deals with companies, corporations, and charters.
I would think that in the case of a nonhuman entity, such as a corporation, there are no inherent rights and they are the ones that have responsibilities to have their rights. In other words, if a company decides to apply their power in a way that violated a person's power, they lose that right.
I'm obviously not against company's or corporations in principle as vehicles for a group of people to engage with others in a certain way. Generally speaking, one contracts voluntarily with a company. If you don't like the terms, then you don't contract with them. But if a certain company is the only game in town, such that you have no choice but to contract with them in order to receive what might be a public utility, AND the terms of the contract are coercive, then that company clearly presents a problem from a voluntaryist perspective. There is a case for stepping in to restrain evil. That was the intent of mergers and monopolies commissions. The problem was recognised in the US at the turn of the 20th century, maybe earlier. And as I say, under the current 'capitalist' farce, which is an efficient competition eliminator, we know we have numerous corporate problems.
I'm concerned about how corporations bend the rules that puts strain on customers or competitors.
There's also the issue with monopolies that you brought up.
Example: How exactly do you prevent the guy who bought the land up river of you from damming up the river and charging you and others down stream?
The free market won't fix the issue in this case where it's a commodity that many have no choice to purchase from.... I suppose in that case, we need rules to prevent land owners from hoarding water or whatever resource... But then it's not voluntaryism?!
The water from a natural river belongs to everyone, surely? So if a landowner damned a river in the way you describe, wouldn't he be effectively stealing from others, which is a violation of Natural Law? I reckon a restraint-of-evil action would be warranted. I don't think an entirely free market can ever exist. Once you apply principles of Natural Law and voluntaryism, you're going to end up taking action to prevent a power concentration which is the thing that inevitably leads to abuse.
Peter Thiel and his ilk — yet more examples of why bullying is NEVER good, both in the original acts of bullying and later, when the bullied (exacting some sort of revenge) become the bullies.
The irrepressible quote hunter in me was a busy boy. What follows are the beauties I bagged...
“Power wins when those who have it exercise it, as they inevitably will, and crucially, when those who would like to have it but don’t, end up siding with power to experience the vicarious thrill of having it. That was the covid psyop in a nutshell.”
“A right is inalienable or else it is not a right.”
“The battle for free speech, the cry to halt genocide, the fight for individual sovereignty – these are all battles over right versus wrong, moral versus immoral, Natural Law versus the law of the jungle. In short, good versus evil.”
“We need to look behind the curtain to truly understand what is unfolding on the stage. Too much is simply not understood because only a fraction of the story is presented.”
“But if something is wrong, if something is evil, no amount of science or convenience can get you to acquiesce to it. Those with power know that, and they fear it. That is why science has been hijacked, repackaged as a religion, and presented as the final arbiter of right and wrong. It is not.”
“Dressed in false morality, ideologies are almost always vehicles for subjugation and power concentration.”
“We’re hurtling towards a sinister One World Government under the UN’s Pact for the Future; a WHO governed biomedical global fascist dictatorship, and; a global digital gulag that posits the strangulation of free speech as the only way to achieve ‘online safety’ and defend our ‘democracy’ from ‘far-right’ mal-, dis-, and mis-information.”
“In the same way that colonial subjects were instructed to obey or die, Western subjects are now being fast-tracked into an obey-or-die dystopia. Of course, there is always a ‘reason’ to obey that disguises the raw will to power and to subjugate. In colonial times, it was a ‘civilising’ mission. For Western subjects today, it’s ‘saving the planet’, saving our ‘democracies’ from ‘misinformation’, saving us from the existential threat of ‘pandemics’, saving us from Russia. Funny how being saved from something is a prerequisite for enslavement!”
Another word for power would be force. There is power in volunteering or simply stated as self giving love, but no force. That power can and has changed the course of history. In fact ,about every thousand years, a great one has come around and used such power. Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and others.
Indeed. You may be invoking power in the way it is used in Power vs Force by David Hawkins? I decided to use the word power to align with Orwell's negative usage of it in the quote at the beginning of the article. I hope I succeeded in differentiating good power from negative power.
Yes, glad you are familiar with Hawkins. I wanted to credit him but forgot his name. One of my issues with the women’s movement today is how more power is considered the goal without considering what kind of power, selfish or selfless. But that’s another issue. I do think governments all over the world are likely to fail along with economies in the near future. Let a new world come and let it be based on the right use of power, after humanity learns some hard, hard lessons. Terrific article.
"With rights come responsibilities” is bullshit.
Exactly! There's no prerequisite to fulfill human rights. That's some slave like logic, as if you gotta earn rights.
However, I've yet to understand how voluntaryism deals with companies, corporations, and charters.
I would think that in the case of a nonhuman entity, such as a corporation, there are no inherent rights and they are the ones that have responsibilities to have their rights. In other words, if a company decides to apply their power in a way that violated a person's power, they lose that right.
I'm obviously not against company's or corporations in principle as vehicles for a group of people to engage with others in a certain way. Generally speaking, one contracts voluntarily with a company. If you don't like the terms, then you don't contract with them. But if a certain company is the only game in town, such that you have no choice but to contract with them in order to receive what might be a public utility, AND the terms of the contract are coercive, then that company clearly presents a problem from a voluntaryist perspective. There is a case for stepping in to restrain evil. That was the intent of mergers and monopolies commissions. The problem was recognised in the US at the turn of the 20th century, maybe earlier. And as I say, under the current 'capitalist' farce, which is an efficient competition eliminator, we know we have numerous corporate problems.
I'm concerned about how corporations bend the rules that puts strain on customers or competitors.
There's also the issue with monopolies that you brought up.
Example: How exactly do you prevent the guy who bought the land up river of you from damming up the river and charging you and others down stream?
The free market won't fix the issue in this case where it's a commodity that many have no choice to purchase from.... I suppose in that case, we need rules to prevent land owners from hoarding water or whatever resource... But then it's not voluntaryism?!
The water from a natural river belongs to everyone, surely? So if a landowner damned a river in the way you describe, wouldn't he be effectively stealing from others, which is a violation of Natural Law? I reckon a restraint-of-evil action would be warranted. I don't think an entirely free market can ever exist. Once you apply principles of Natural Law and voluntaryism, you're going to end up taking action to prevent a power concentration which is the thing that inevitably leads to abuse.
Peter Thiel and his ilk — yet more examples of why bullying is NEVER good, both in the original acts of bullying and later, when the bullied (exacting some sort of revenge) become the bullies.
The irrepressible quote hunter in me was a busy boy. What follows are the beauties I bagged...
“Power wins when those who have it exercise it, as they inevitably will, and crucially, when those who would like to have it but don’t, end up siding with power to experience the vicarious thrill of having it. That was the covid psyop in a nutshell.”
“A right is inalienable or else it is not a right.”
“The battle for free speech, the cry to halt genocide, the fight for individual sovereignty – these are all battles over right versus wrong, moral versus immoral, Natural Law versus the law of the jungle. In short, good versus evil.”
“We need to look behind the curtain to truly understand what is unfolding on the stage. Too much is simply not understood because only a fraction of the story is presented.”
“But if something is wrong, if something is evil, no amount of science or convenience can get you to acquiesce to it. Those with power know that, and they fear it. That is why science has been hijacked, repackaged as a religion, and presented as the final arbiter of right and wrong. It is not.”
“Dressed in false morality, ideologies are almost always vehicles for subjugation and power concentration.”
“We’re hurtling towards a sinister One World Government under the UN’s Pact for the Future; a WHO governed biomedical global fascist dictatorship, and; a global digital gulag that posits the strangulation of free speech as the only way to achieve ‘online safety’ and defend our ‘democracy’ from ‘far-right’ mal-, dis-, and mis-information.”
“In the same way that colonial subjects were instructed to obey or die, Western subjects are now being fast-tracked into an obey-or-die dystopia. Of course, there is always a ‘reason’ to obey that disguises the raw will to power and to subjugate. In colonial times, it was a ‘civilising’ mission. For Western subjects today, it’s ‘saving the planet’, saving our ‘democracies’ from ‘misinformation’, saving us from the existential threat of ‘pandemics’, saving us from Russia. Funny how being saved from something is a prerequisite for enslavement!”
Glad you found some nuggets there!
Another word for power would be force. There is power in volunteering or simply stated as self giving love, but no force. That power can and has changed the course of history. In fact ,about every thousand years, a great one has come around and used such power. Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and others.
Indeed. You may be invoking power in the way it is used in Power vs Force by David Hawkins? I decided to use the word power to align with Orwell's negative usage of it in the quote at the beginning of the article. I hope I succeeded in differentiating good power from negative power.
Yes, glad you are familiar with Hawkins. I wanted to credit him but forgot his name. One of my issues with the women’s movement today is how more power is considered the goal without considering what kind of power, selfish or selfless. But that’s another issue. I do think governments all over the world are likely to fail along with economies in the near future. Let a new world come and let it be based on the right use of power, after humanity learns some hard, hard lessons. Terrific article.